United States v. Wayne Walker
799 F.3d 1361
11th Cir.2015Background
- Wayne Walker pled guilty conditionally to manufacturing counterfeit U.S. currency and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his home.
- Officers made two prior visits (9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.) to Walker’s house the night before looking for a third person (Upshaw) with an outstanding warrant; no one answered those knocks.
- At 5:04 a.m. officers drove by, saw a Honda Civic in an open-sided carport with its dome light on and house lights on, and observed a person slumped over the wheel.
- An officer knocked on the car window, asked the occupant (Walker) if he was all right, and requested he step out; Walker invited them into the house to look for Upshaw.
- Inside, an officer saw counterfeit $100 bills in plain view on a shelf and the officers arrested Walker; Walker moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful knock-and-talk and an unreasonable early-morning approach.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers exceeded the knock-and-talk doctrine by approaching and knocking on a vehicle in the carport | Officers conducted an investigatory search beyond knock-and-talk when they approached the car | Officers were contacting occupants to inquire about Upshaw; approach to vehicle was within knock-and-talk scope | Court held officers did not exceed knock-and-talk; conduct was permissible |
| Whether approaching a residence at 5:04 a.m. was unreasonable and required exigent circumstances | Early-morning approach is per se unreasonable; Brigham City requires exigent circumstances for such entries | Time alone did not make the approach unreasonable given lights on and prior knocks; no per se exigency rule for knock-and-talk | Court held the early-morning approach was reasonable under the circumstances; no exigency required for knock-and-talk |
| Whether officers’ conduct objectively revealed a purpose to search (thus ending knock-and-talk protection) | Knocking on car and entering home showed intent to search for evidence | Officers sought to locate Upshaw and check on an occupant’s welfare, not to discover incriminating evidence | Court found behavior did not objectively reveal a search purpose; within knock-and-talk bounds |
| Whether evidence seen in plain view after invitation must be suppressed | Entry and plain-view discovery were unlawful; evidence should be suppressed | Walker invited officers in; plain-view discovery lawful following lawful consent/entry | Court affirmed denial of suppression; counterfeit bills admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for suppression motions)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (warrantless home entry reasonable when exigent circumstances exist)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (front-porch approach permitted by implied license; scope limits on investigative methods)
- United States v. Taylor, 458 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2006) (geographic limits on knock-and-talk; minor departures permitted)
- Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing enclosed garage from open carport in Fourth Amendment analysis)